🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from allegations that it installed spyware on the computers of two dissidents during their stay in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Context

Bahrain has previously lost its immunity argument in the high court and appellate court. Bringing the matter to the highest court highlights the importance of this issue for the nation's international reputation.

Should Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider consequences for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, starting this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two men have the legal right to seek compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn supported a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Article 5 of the act specifies that a country does not have immunity from claims for physical or psychological harm caused by an action or inaction that took place in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding other spyware claims being handled by law firms on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can collect large quantities of data from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, images, data collections, documents and recordings. It allows capture of live audio from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that external control, from abroad, of a electronic device situated in the United Kingdom represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the hacking took place overseas, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an action in the UK, even if certain activities occur abroad. The judicial body also ruled that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation included standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their computers were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It sends a clear message to foreign governments who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, commented: "This process has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a duty to reveal what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my computer. The effect has been profound – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind state protection to pursue their cross-border persecution on British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings present fundamental questions about accountability for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these matters."